I went to a theater last night with you. I have an idea if you and I had gotten up and marched around that theater, whether we said anything or not, we would have been arrested. Nobody has ever said that the First Amendment gives people a right to go anywhere in the world they want to go or say anything in the world they want to say. Buying the theater tickets did not buy the opportunity to make a speech there. We have a system of property in this country which is also protected by the Constitution. We have a system of property, which means that a man does not have a right to do anything he wants anywhere he wants to do it. For instance, I would feel a little badly if somebody were to try to come into my house and tell me that he had a constitutional right to come in there because he wanted to make a speech against the Supreme Court. I realize the freedom of people to make a speech against the Supreme Court, but I do not want him to make it in my house.

That is a wonderful aphorism about shouting "fire" in a crowded theater. But you do not have to shout "fire" to get arrested. If a person creates a disorder in a theater, they would get him there not because of what he hollered but because he hollered. They would get him not because of any views he had but because they thought he did not have any views that they wanted to hear there. That is the way I would answer not because of what he shouted but because he shouted.

A private law society based on respect for private property promptly takes care of your theatre dilemma. There is no need for government imposition.

I'm going to need a little assistance in understanding this as it doesn't seem to resolve any problems.

Private laws are established by private contract and only those that sign the contract voluntarily are subject to the conditions of the contract. In short anyone can simply refuse to sign the contract which means the "private laws" don't apply to them at all and can't be enforced in any manner upon them.

I don't know of anyone that would choose to engage in criminal activities that would be willing to sign a contract subjecting themselves to "private laws" in society and they will never be subjected to any authority established by private law.

Only through the establishment of the "social contract" are all members of the society subjected to the laws whether they agree individually to comply with them or not. If you establish universal "private law" then effectively you've also created the "government" to adjudicate and enforce those laws. It might be a de facto government but it is government nonetheless.

Private laws are established by private contract and only those that sign the contract voluntarily are subject to the conditions of the contract. In short anyone can simply refuse to sign the contract which means the "private laws" don't apply to them at all and can't be enforced in any manner upon them.

I don't know of anyone that would choose to engage in criminal activities that would be willing to sign a contract subjecting themselves to "private laws" in society and they will never be subjected to any authority established by private law.

Only through the establishment of the "social contract" are all members of the society subjected to the laws whether they agree individually to comply with them or not. If you establish universal "private law" then effectively you've also created the "government" to adjudicate and enforce those laws. It might be a de facto government but it is government nonetheless.

This has been explained to you several times by other members. Taking that into account, and the fact that you will more than likely just respond to me with an essay-length spiel devoid of substance, I will simply recommend this video:

This has been explained to you several times by other members. Taking that into account, and the fact that you will more than likely just respond to me with an essay-length spiel devoid of substance, I will simply recommend this video:

This is all based upon the assuption that "Bill" subscribes to a protection agency and that he gives a shit.

If "Bill" (the mugger) doesn't subscribe to any private entity and simply shoots and kills the agents of Dawn Defense that show up and attempt to use force against him? He is acting in self-defence in responding to any act of aggression committed by the agents of Dawn Defense. He has that Right He doesn't care about his "credit rating" because he's a mugger by trade. He depends upon himself as his own "protection agency" and simply ignores the demands of other agencies and response with force to any acts of aggression by him by private agencies. He cannot be subjected to imprisonment as he has not agreed to the jurisiction of any agency over his actions. If he acts as his own "defence" agency he can resort to the immediate use of force if he so chooses and is under no obligation to work with any other agency.

In the end this entire proposition breaks down and still results in the same use of force against the person that government agencies impose. The only difference is the "insurance" option that is currently provided for by private enterprise already.

Of course a person not subscribing to a protection agency will not have a private agency to respond to if an act of aggression is committed against them. Tens of millions of people wouldn't be able to afford the "private" protective services so they would not be protected by anyone. In short crime against Poor People would be completely "legal" because no one would represent them and they would be incapable of representing themselves.

This is really a horrible proposition based upon a critical review. It doesn't reduce the use of force, it doesn't provide any protections for those that can't afford to subscribe, it doesn't protect the Rights of the accused, it combines the "Prosecution" and the "Court" into a single entity, and has other very serious flaws.

All it does is make matters worse and not better. It is more representative of "vigilantee justice" (an oxymoron) than of a criminal justice system.

This is all based upon the assuption that "Bill" subscribes to a protection agency and that he gives a shit.

If "Bill" (the mugger) doesn't subscribe to any private entity and simply shoots and kills the agents of Dawn Defense that show up and attempt to use force against him? He is acting in self-defence in responding to any act of aggression committed by the agents of Dawn Defense. He has that Right He doesn't care about his "credit rating" because he's a mugger by trade. He depends upon himself as his own "protection agency" and simply ignores the demands of other agencies and response with force to any acts of aggression by him by private agencies. He cannot be subjected to imprisonment as he has not agreed to the jurisiction of any agency over his actions. If he acts as his own "defence" agency he can resort to the immediate use of force if he so chooses and is under no obligation to work with any other agency.

In the end this entire proposition breaks down and still results in the same use of force against the person that government agencies impose. The only difference is the "insurance" option that is currently provided for by private enterprise already.

Of course a person not subscribing to a protection agency will not have a private agency to respond to if an act of aggression is committed against them. Tens of millions of people wouldn't be able to afford the "private" protective services so they would not be protected by anyone. In short crime against Poor People would be completely "legal" because no one would represent them and they would be incapable of representing themselves.

This is really a horrible proposition based upon a critical review. It doesn't reduce the use of force, it doesn't provide any protections for those that can't afford to subscribe, it doesn't protect the Rights of the accused, it combines the "Prosecution" and the "Court" into a single entity, and has other very serious flaws.

All it does is make matters worse and not better. It is more representative of "vigilantee justice" (an oxymoron) than of a criminal justice system.

Again, this has been explained to you, so again I will simply reply with a video. Go to the 9 minute point to hear your specific concerns addressed.

Again, this has been explained to you, so again I will simply reply with a video. Go to the 9 minute point to hear your specific concerns addressed.

This is as bad as listening to a "creationist" argument as it is based upon flawed logic.

First of all when it comes to "land" (and natural resourses) no one can "own" them as they are not a product of the labor of the person. We can grant limited authority for use of land to a private party for a specific purpose that benefits society based upon logical argument but based upon the foundation of the "Inalienable Rights of the Person" the Right of Property only exists based upon the expenditure of labor in creating the commodity and no amount of labor can actually create land.

Next is the false proposition that people would contract with a DRO to begin with so that they could "drop out" and then be tracked on a private database. I would estimate that about 1/2 of the population, unless forced to do so, would never sign-up for a DRO to begin with because about 1/2 of the households can't afford to do it without sacrificing more important spending.

To dispute a claim made in the video about insurance most people don't have insurance covering all claims of loss. If we use an example of car insurance, that is required by law for those that operate a motor vehicle on the public roads, it only requires liability insurance. Millions of people, even though the law requires it, don't have any auto insurance. Of those that do tens of millions don't carry any coverage for comprehension, theft, and/or uninsured motorists. Tens of millions of renters don't have "homeowners" insurance and millions of homeowners only have "fire and liability" insurance to comply with their mortgage requirements.

Next is the fact that the issue of "crime" ignores the denial of equality of economic opportunity caused by invidious discrimination. When we look at the high crime rates in many of our African-American communities it is being driven by a lawless society that is denied or discriminated against in employment.

While I don't dispute that "victimless" crimes do create violence (e.g. drug trade) it doesn't necessarily result in law enforcement corruption. Yes, there are anecdotal cases but safeguards are imposed in law enforcement to prevent the corruption and such cases of corruption are relatively rare. It all depends on the safe guards but the vast majority of those involved in law enforcement are not corrupt. Of course corruption is not limited to government agencies such as law enforcement and it can be argued that there is far more corruption in private enterprise.

I will return to the fundamental flaw and that is that under "private" contracts the private entities only have authority and jurisdiction based upon explicit consent. A private entity, singular or working with others, as no jurisdiction or authority over anyone that has not voluntarily submitted to the jurisdiction and authority by explicit consent established by a written contract. No action could justifiably be taken against any person not subscribing to a DRO.

Under the "social contract" consent is "implied" and therefore government has the juridiction over all persons under it's adminstrative control. It doesn't require explicit consent which is required upon private contract law.

I can't believe that people listen to this and don't apply any critical thinking skills to it.

Contract laws require explicit consent and only apply to private parties that voluntarily sign the contract and don't apply to anyone else. I would estimate that 1/2 the population would not "subscribe" to the private contracts of DRO's therefore 1/2 the population would not be afforded either the protections or be subject to any authority of the DRO's.

Social Contracts don't require explicit consent and instead are based upon implied consent. Social contracts apply to everyone under the jurisdiction of the social contract.

I am still dumbstruct that the most recent video stated that every square inch of the Earth "belonged to someone" (i.e. there is no 'public' land) and they could jointly deny a person the ability to even occupy one square inch of the planet.

What kind of stupid idiot would propose that and what kind of idiot would believe it?

I am still dumbstruct that the most recent video stated that every square inch of the Earth "belonged to someone" (i.e. there is no 'public' land) and they could jointly deny a person the ability to even occupy one square inch of the planet.

What kind of stupid idiot would propose that and what kind of idiot would believe it?

I didn't watch the video, but are you saying that it is essentially claiming that certain private property owners could block others from gaining access to property or an area that they themselves do not own?

I didn't watch the video, but are you saying that it is essentially claiming that certain private property owners could block others from gaining access to property or an area that they themselves do not own?

I will have to paraphrase but in the video the claim is made that everything (which includes all land) is "privately" owned and nothing is "publicly" owned. In the example, as I recall, a homeless person was denied the ability to sleep in a park because the park is privately owned.

The extrapolation of "privately owned" land without "public" land is that ultimately every square inch of the Earth is under private monopolistic control (ownership) of someone and they can prohibit any other person from access which is fundamentally what the video states in an argument on how to enforce "private law" related to someone that doesn't subscribe to a private law enforcement policy.

A bit off topic but the point is for me that the propositions being made for private law enforcement are really based upon such flawed logic that I can't see how anyone could fall for the proposition.

I am willing, in limited instances, to allow certian infringements upon my Freedom to Exercise my Inalienable Rights so long as such infringements do not disparage the actual right and so long as such limititions are to the least extent possible to achieve the greater protections of the Inalienable Rights and Freedoms of others.

For example I have no problem whatsoever with the limitation upon my Freedom of Speech and Expression where i'm prohibited from yelling "fire" in a crowded theater as it does not infringe upon my Inalienable Right of Thought where i have the Freedom to express it. I can yell "fire" all I want outside of the theater.

You're willing to allow your rights to be infringed upon?

That's funny. I think you meant to say "accept" rather than "allow." You are not the one who gets to say if your rights will be infringed upon or not. A bunch of people with way more money, political and industrial power than you or I will ever have are the ones that decide whose rights are infringed upon, in what manner, how often, to what degree etc etc

Quit the self righteous act. Unless you can live completely inside your own mind, which very very few individuals in the sum of human history have actually had or will have the ability to do, then you're just another cog like the rest of us. You should attempt to develop stronger coping mechanisms that will allow you to better deal with this reality. But don't lie to yourself and others.

That's funny. I think you meant to say "accept" rather than "allow." You are not the one who gets to say if your rights will be infringed upon or not. A bunch of people with way more money, political and industrial power than you or I will ever have are the ones that decide whose rights are infringed upon, in what manner, how often, to what degree etc etc

Quit the self righteous act. Unless you can live completely inside your own mind, which very very few individuals in the sum of human history have actually had or will have the ability to do, then you're just another cog like the rest of us. You should attempt to develop stronger coping mechanisms that will allow you to better deal with this reality. But don't lie to yourself and others.

Shiva is a 'progressive' cog of the "useful idiot" variety. Don't expect coherence or clear language.

I'd think about how a right could be infringed without disparaging it, but I'm afraid I'd start thinking like Shiva. It's not something worth considering until we find out what the meaning of the word "is" is.